'Experience has no conditions for a critic of knowledge who
proceeds transcendentally, that is from the vantage of point
of experience itself.'
to argue this is of course ridiculous - experience is conditional -
just as that which is experienced is conditional - and that which
does the experiencing is conditional
I think the point is rather that we begin with experience -
and to know it - understand it - we at least place it in some
kind of ideational context
'To urge, therefore, that a self or ego is presupposed in
experience or even must have created experience by
absolute fiat, is curiously to fail in critical thinking, and to
renounce the transcendental method.........this backsliding
of transcendentalism...might have no serious consequences,
if transcendentalism were clearly recognized to be simply
a romantic episode in reflection, a sort of poetic madness
and no necessary step in the life of reason.....'
indeed a self or an ego - such terms are poetic - the inner
dimension of experience by definition is not susceptible to
objective - scientific account - the categories which come
with such analyses - are not applicable - and so we need
different categories - a different language to describe such
experience - and so - art - aesthetics is the language - the
'science' of the inner experience
consciousness stands dead centre (another poetic image)
- it can look out - it can look in - there is no one language
- there is the outer language and the inner language
this is not to say anything extraordinary
but it does point to the origin - the reason for art
and once this is appreciated - the lopsided view of the
objectivists (that there is only objective reality) is seen
for what it is - the product of stunted if not deformed growth
- and very sad
'But the delusion seems troublesome to the serious critic
of knowledge when it perhaps inclines him to imagine that,
in asserting that experience is a product, and has two terms,
he is describing the inner nature of experience and not
merely its external conditions, as natural history reports them.
He may then be tempted to assign a metaphysical status
and logical necessity to a merely material fact.'
It is not necessary to go off the edge here - it need not follow
because one recognizes an inner experience one is committed
to a metaphysical status and logical necessity
the inner experience - is contingent
this is what confuses the objectivists - they think - yes because -
it is in a state of flux it must - like the outside world be subject
to - objective analysis
the thing is - though not outside - yes it has some characteristics
of what is observable
how do you define a box?
is it - the external conditions - let us say it's wooden structure -
that defines it or is it 'the space inside'?
you see it all depends where - where - you are
you can't have one without the other
but you can mistake one for the other
it's a question - here of metaphysical geography
'Instead of the body, which is the true "subject" in experience,
he may think he finds an absolute ego, and instead of the natural
environment of the body, which is the true "object", he may think
he finds an illimitable reality; and to make things singular, he may
proceed to declare that these two are one: but this is a myth'
yes - we can forget about the absolute ego
and the body as subject - OK - so long as you understand -
the body - is not one dimensional - yes it is observable -
but it is also known from the inside -
the 'body' if you wish to use that term - and why not -
is philosophically speaking - two dimensional
scientifically speaking - only one dimensional
(and here - if anyone needed to know is the difference between
philosophy and science
science - is the useful with one task
philosophy - understands and surveys - looks at possible
responses to any one issue)
the natural environment - the true object?
the body - here - too is part of the natural environment
a human being is both subject and object
to speak of what this unity - amounts to
is indeed to get metaphysical
it is to go beyond - the realities of subjectivity and objectivity
you must go beyond these categories - if you are to explain them
and really this is where mysticism enters the story
and mysticism is I think just - poetry - thinking above its station
but nevertheless quite harmless in itself
it answers some need
my own response at this level - is to say beyond the subject and
object - we have no knowledge
you can reify - or romance this into 'the unknown'
as some mystics have
